Pair Programming in the Classroom.

Uploaded on:
Category: Product / Service
Pair Programming in the Classroom Mark Sherriff College of Virginia July 9, 2010 Some material civility of Laurie Williams, NCSU Woven artwork 2010 Outline What precisely is Pair Programming? The Case for Pair Programming The Costs Rules for an effective matching knowledge
Slide 1

Pair Programming in the Classroom Mark Sherriff University of Virginia July 9, 2010 Some material affability of Laurie Williams, NCSU Tapestry 2010

Slide 2

Overview What precisely is Pair Programming? The Case for Pair Programming The Costs Guidelines for an effective matching knowledge Myths and Legends Resources 2 Tapestry 2010

Slide 3

Pair Programming Definition "Pair writing computer programs is a style of programming in which two software engineers work one next to the other at one PC, consistently teaming up on the same configuration, calculation, code, or test." – Laurie Williams 3 Tapestry 2010

Slide 4

The Roles The Driver The individual with "control" of the PC Does the heft of the writing The Navigator Actively takes after alongside the driver with remarks Can assume control whenever 4 Tapestry 2010

Slide 5

Partners versus Pair Programming How is Pair Programming unique in relation to simply appointing accomplices? Banding together: "You go do this part and I\'ll go do this part and afterward we\'ll assemble it back." Pair Programming: "How about we first do this part together, then we\'ll handle the rest." 5 Tapestry 2010

Slide 6

Why Pair Programming? Pair programming understudies tend to: Make it through the top of the line Perform equivalently or better on exams and undertakings Perform fine and dandy in future solo programming Stick with software engineering 6 Tapestry 2010

Slide 7

Why Pair Programming? A moment emotionally supportive network We have found that matching eliminates almost the greater part of the "trifling" inquiries (linguistic structure, task illumination, and so on.) and a huge segment of the more mind boggling questions (troubleshooting, and so on.) We have possessed the capacity to diminish the quantity of TAs for a few courses Instructor available time are much calmer, and the teacher can invest more energy with understudies that need more help 7 Tapestry 2010

Slide 8

Why Pair Programming? Now and then it is a numbers amusement In a lab of 40 understudies… having 20 sets makes it less demanding for TAs to get to everybody 20 assignments are less demanding/speedier to review than 40 8 Tapestry 2010

Slide 9

All for the low, low cost of… ! What\'s the expense? Pair administration How would we allot combines adequately for each task so it\'s not all that much overhead? Pair assessment How can understudies report pair issues to the staff? Reviewing How would you "split" evaluations up between accomplices? 9 Tapestry 2010

Slide 10

Pair Management and Evaluation PairEval Available for nothing from NCSU Realsearch Group and Work Ethic Tests Assignment/Partner Creation Reporting Tool How to "split" evaluations 10 Tapestry 2010

Slide 11

PairEval 11 Tapestry 2010

Slide 12

PairEval 12 Tapestry 2010

Slide 13

PairEval Optionally, utilize understudy data to shape bunches. Nearer hard working attitudes and more assorted Sensing and Intuition understudies make for more good matches. Select a gathering number 13 Tapestry 2010 Move understudies into and out of gatherings

Slide 14

PairEval 14 Tapestry 2010

Slide 15

PairEval 15 Tapestry 2010

Slide 16

The Biggest Cost Training! Teachers, TAs, and understudies should be instructed how to do viable pair programming in a controlled domain! The controlled environment could be a shut lab or address lab framework. 16 Tapestry 2010

Slide 17

But we don\'t have a shut lab? CS1: Pair programming not prudent (accomplice split attitude!) Use for in-lab work just CS2: Proceed with (compelling) alert At slightest bond in lab + some outside work CS2+: After no less than one combined class Bonding still useful, outside work fine 17 Tapestry 2010

Slide 18

Getting Involved Instructors and Teaching Assistants need to play a dynamic part in lab Must screen and approach sets on the off chance that they appear to be useless Should "firmly energize" drivers and pilots to switch Instructors likewise should comprehend that a few pairings are simply not going to work Don\'t give it a chance to dishearten you! 18 Tapestry 2010

Slide 19

How Many Pairings Fail? 19 Tapestry 2010

Slide 20

Guidelines To Follow Strict lateness/nonappearance strategy must be taken after for pair exercises to prepare for apathetic accomplices. Loss of accomplice, focuses, and terrible assessment There must be a reporting instrument for understudies to give input on accomplices PairEval works quite well; additionally CATME "On the off chance that you could rate your exertion taking into account 100%.." 20 Tapestry 2010

Slide 21

Guidelines To Follow Assignments ought to be more testing "Softball" assignments have a tendency to be done by a solitary individual without counseling their accomplice the earth for blending must be helpful for matching 21 Tapestry 2010

Slide 22

Lab Setup 22 Tapestry 2010

Slide 23

Guidelines To Follow Don\'t go over the edge! Blending isn\'t for each task There must be a parity (in work and in evaluation) Pairing is not irregular! Thought must go into sets Students ought to in a perfect world get new accomplices for each task 23 Tapestry 2010

Slide 24

Pair Rotation Reassign a few times for every semester Good for understudies Get to meet new individuals, find out about working with new individuals If they don\'t care for their accomplice, they know they will get another one soon Good for teacher Multiple types of criticism Natural treatment of useless sets 24 Tapestry 2010

Slide 25

Myths and Legends Myth: Half the understudies will learn "In the primary course, understudies require some an opportunity to assimilate the thoughts themselves." "My slant is to permit more gathering work beginning in the second course." "We need to make sure that every understudy composes enough code him/herself to take in the starting ideas." "I am against pair-programming in early on courses, where understudies need to create solid programming abilities themselves." 25 Tapestry 2010

Slide 26

Myths and Legends truth be told, every one of the understudies learn entirely well… Studies at NCSU and SDSU demonstrated that exam scores were practically identical or enhanced for all understudies in initial classes Also, the rate of understudies whose evaluation in CS2 went around more than 1/3 of an evaluation dropped once blending was utilized as a part of CS1 Williams, L., Layman, L., Lab Partners: If They\'re Good Enough for the Sciences, Why Aren\'t They Good Enough for Us? , Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T \'07) 26 Tapestry 2010

Slide 27

Myths and Legends Myth: Cheating will increment "With free guidelines about who accomplices are, individuals will simply pass code around. There must be structure!" "Old accomplices may feel obliged to help their previous colleagues." 27 Tapestry 2010

Slide 28

Myths and Legends Think about it a little in an unexpected way… When we give accomplices, understudies now have an emotionally supportive network they can swing to Anecdotal proof from understudies showed that the anxiety of feeling alone and separated made them consider swindling Two individuals now need to concede to bamboozling! Well… there are special cases to this one… Moss is still a profitable instrument 28 Tapestry 2010

Slide 29

Other Guidelines and Myths Any others to include? 29 Tapestry 2010

Slide 30

Resources My email: 30 Tapestry 2010

View more...